Report

Executive Summary

In general, the task force heartily supports the main thrusts of the Hirons report. We endorse its efforts to revise the code so that it finally deals with seriality in a manner that accommodates the types of resources which we currently catalog, its attempts to harmonize practices with ISBD(S) and the ISSN Network, and its emphasis on a more holistic approach to serials cataloging by which the whole work instead of a single issue is described. We feel that many of these initiatives are long overdue.

The major specific recommendations in the Hirons report which we strongly support and which we urge the JSC to implement are:

• C.0 – General

  The descriptive part of the code should be reorganized according to ISBD area, and there should be an expanded introduction to it.

• C.1 – Type of publication

  Two types of publications should be defined — finite and continuing — and definitions of those and various other terms in the code should be written or revised.

• C.2 – Description

  There should be rules for the newly defined integrating resources, and a new record should not be created merely when the numbering changes back to the original scheme.

• C.3 – Major and minor changes

  The ISBD(S) and ISSN terminology of major and minor changes should be adopted into the code, along with an indication of which changes would be considered major and therefore result in a new record or in a change of entry.

• C.4 – Relationships

  The concept of relationships should be addressed more fully in any revised code.

The major recommendations in the Hirons report for which there is no unanimous support among the members of the task force, and of which we therefore urge the JSC to consider more carefully the relative merits of implementation or not, are:

• C.2 – Description

  Some task force members strongly object to recording the title and statement of responsibility and edition statement of the latest piece or iteration of a continuing resource. Others feel it is a good idea which deserves strong support.

  There was also much debate about the use of angle brackets in records to indicate the dates to which the information applies. Some task force members feel it is something that only catalogers understand, whereas others feel that non-catalogers could be instructed on their meaning.

The only recommendation in the Hirons report which we strongly object to, and which we urge the JSC not to pursue, is:

• C.3 – Major and minor changes

  We don’t think that the use of a succession of latest entry records should be a consideration for the future, as it results in records which are hard for users to understand.

Introduction

The Task Force on Seriality and AACR2R was established in May 1999 after the release by the Joint Steering Committee for Revision of AACR of the Hirons report on seriality. The charge of the task force is as follows:

The Task Force on Seriality and AACR2R is charged with the detailed review of Jean Hirons’s “Revising AACR2 to Accommodate Seriality: Report to the Joint Steering Committee for Revision of AACR.” Specifically, the Task Force will review the issues and recommendations raised in the report, focusing on those dealing with AACR2R and the bibliographic universe rather than with MARC 21. As necessary, the Task Force will recommend appropriate actions for CC:DA to take in response to the Hirons report. The Task Force’s report will likely form the substance of the ALA response to the Hirons report.

The members of the task force are Everett Allgood, Ruth Christ, Wayne Jones (chair), Judy Knop, Adam Schiff, and Mitch Turitz. We had our first meeting, focusing on logistics and organizational issues, on June 26, 1999, right after the first day of CC:DA meetings at ALA Annual in New Orleans. Subsequently, we worked by email during July and August, posting individual comments and opinions, and carrying on discussions. We also monitored discussion of the Hirons report which took place on the AUTOCAT and SERIALST listservs, and received email correspondence from a couple of individuals.

Recommendations

Following are comments by the task force on specific recommendations in the Hirons report (indicated by the report’s letter and number designations). The task force urges the implementation by the JSC of any recommendation which we support or strongly support or for which there is general support. For those recommendations for which there is no unanimous support among task force members, we urge the JSC to take into consideration the opinions of other cataloging constituencies before implementation (or not). And those recommendations which we object or strongly object to, we urge the JSC not to pursue further.

C.0 – General

0.1 – expanded introduction to the code or to the descriptive section of it

We strongly support this recommendation. It would lessen the need for numerous rule interpretations. The introduction should include guidance on, among other things, what constitutes a serial, title changes, and the circumstances necessary for separate or successive records.

0.2 – reorganize the descriptive section of the code according to ISBD area

We strongly support this recommendation. It would reduce the questions about where particular rules should go and eliminate redundancy. We realize that such a fundamental reorganization of the code would likely require years to complete, but we believe that this delay should not hold up the implementation of the other recommendations (for example, the interim chapter for integrating resources referred to in 2.1 below). An overall strategy should be developed with specific instructions about which recommendations should be implemented now and which should await the complete reorganization.

One individual who corresponded with the task force expressed strong disagreement with this recommendation, however. The concern is that the resulting code would not address the problems of seriality, but would simply spread the information among several chapters rather than confining it to one. The rearrangement would not eliminate duplication. Catalogers would also end up with a less practical cataloging tool: if they were cataloging resources in a single format, they would have to read through rules that have nothing to do with that particular format, rather than having a single chapter to consult for the format. One of the predicted results would be a greater need for user manuals for each format, as the code itself would no longer be a serviceable tool for the working cataloger.

The task force includes this summary of the correspondent’s comments here for the record, but reaffirms its strong support for the recommendation in the Hirons report.

0.3 – include the rules for changes with the rules for the specific area

We support this recommendation. We recommend that the option to include the rules for changes in a separate section which is referenced from the main text of the rules be exercised only in cases where for some reason it is not feasible or advisable to include them together.

C.1 – Type of publication

1.1 – define two types: finite and continuing

We strongly support this recommendation. However, the model lists databases as continuing integrating resources but we feel that it needs to be clearly stated that not all databases fall into this category — for example, a database of 1970 census data, or a bibliographic database which is not updated after its initial publication. We also recommend that the progress of the deliberations of the ISBD(S) Review Group be followed so that CC:DA may keep informed and perhaps even advise on any definitions that group produces.

1.2 – new and revised definitions of terms

We support the definitions in this recommendation, but with the following comments and suggested changes. We strongly urge that there be harmonization of these definitions in the Hirons report with those in the Delsey report on the logical structure of AACR, in the report of the Task Force on Rule 0.24, and in the report of the Task Force on the Harmonization of ISBD(ER) and AACR. Furthermore, there should be definitions supplied for the terms issuance and iteration, and the terms work, expression, manifestation, and item from the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records.

Comments on specific definitions:

bibliographic resource: We suggest the use of “tangible entity” instead of “physical entity”: even Web resources are physical in the sense that they are on servers, but they are not tangible.

integrating resource: Databases are given as an example but they can be and are also issued complete as is, with no additional integrating data. This is very common on CD-ROM and diskette, but occurs with Web resources as well.

database: The limitation of databases to bibliographic data is not correct, as databases may contain other types of data as well (e.g. statistical data).

Web site: A Web site is not a collection of home pages, but rather a home page with a collection of linked pages. In the definition, substitute “Web pages” for “home pages.” A Web site is also not necessarily a collection of digital documents: it could provide links to digital photographs or sound files, which are not documents per se.

electronic journal: The definition limits the term to serials which are delivered via a computer network. But is a serial issued on CD-ROM not also an electronic journal? If not, what is it?

C.2 – Description

2.1 – rules for integrating resources

We strongly support this recommendation.

2.2 – eliminate concept of chief source of information for continuing resources

We support this recommendation. Some members of the task force support the recommendation in the Delsey report that the concept be eliminated for all resources.

2.3 – for continuing resources, record the title and statement of responsibility and edition statement of the latest piece or iteration

There is no unanimous support for this recommendation among task force members. Those who (strongly) disagree with it cite the increased maintenance that such a change in the rules would engender. Those who support it acknowledge the increase in maintenance, but feel that it is outweighed by the benefits for general users of serials cataloging records, as well as for acquisitions staff: the title and edition information would be for the latest issue, etc., rather than for the earliest. In any case, it is important to remember that only minor changes would be subject to this change in the code: successive entry would still apply in the case of major changes to the title.

2.4 – for continuing resources, prescribe sources of information for the title and statement of responsibility and edition areas according to the type of resource

We support this recommendation. We think some clarification may be needed though: the recommendation refers to rule 12.0B1 only (for print serials), yet it seems to be prescribing sources for non-print serials as well (rule 12.0B2).

2.5 – correct obvious typographical errors in the title proper

We support this recommendation. It fits in well with the philosophy of more holistic serials cataloging.

2.6 – when introductory words precede the title proper, choose another source of the title proper, or omit the introductory words

We support this recommendation, but feel strongly that it should apply to all resources and not simply to serials.

2.7 – do not record other title information for continuing resources (with two exceptions)

There is general support for this recommendation among task force members, but some feel that it should apply to serials only and not to all continuing resources, and that if it were to apply to all continuing resources then more allowance should be given for cataloger’s judgment instead of just having a simple rule with two exceptions. Additionally, some members feel that, for serials at least, no exceptions should be made: that is, other title information should not be recorded in the title area for serials in any case.

2.8 – when there is no designation on the first issue, supply a chronological designation when more appropriate than [No. 1]

There is general support for this recommendation among task force members, but one member disagrees based on a hesitation to supply information not found on pieces, as it could lead to future maintenance.

2.9 – do not make a new record when numbering changes back to the original scheme

We strongly support this recommendation. Some task force members further recommend that in order to accommodate situations in which the numbering changes more than once over the course of publication, the designation be “[2d ser.]” instead of “[new ser.]”.

2.10 – when the place of publication changes, include both latest and earliest places

There is general support for this recommendation among task force members. However, some object to the amount of maintenance that it would entail, whereas others feel that the benefits of the recommendation to library users and staff warrant its adoption.

2.11 – when the publisher changes, include both latest and earliest publishers

There is general support for this recommendation among task force members. However, some object to the amount of maintenance that it would entail, whereas others feel that the benefits of the recommendation to library users and staff warrant its adoption.

2.12 – when the first and/or last issue is not in hand, omit the date or, optionally, supply a probable date

We support this recommendation, and feel that supplying a probable date definitely should be an option: some institutions may feel that the chronological designations are the more important dates for serials, and so may choose not to include probable publication dates in any case.

2.13 – use angle brackets to indicate known dates to which the information applies

There is no unanimous support for this recommendation among task force members. The whole gamut of possibility is represented: some object to angle brackets and feel they should have no place in the code because they don’t mean anything to anyone but (serial) catalogers; others think they should be introduced throughout the code. Those who support the use of angle brackets note that users who may be currently unaware of what they mean could be instructed, and in any case cataloging is often done for other catalogers anyway. The use of angle brackets, which would codify cataloging practice which has gone on for over twenty years, would mean less editing of LC copy by libraries: the angle brackets would no longer have to be deleted.

There was also an alternative suggestion to use a subfield for the dates and then to output them into more comprehensible notes.

2.14 – make notes on titles by which the serial is known other than the title proper

We support this recommendation. Some members feel that the recommendation should be broadened to all resources (not just serials), leaving the decision on when to make a note to the cataloger’s discretion.

2.15 – supply “earliest/latest issue consulted” note instead of “description based on” note; for integrating electronic resources, supply a “date viewed” note

We support this recommendation. We further recommend that it be applied to all successively issued resources, not just continuing resources. It would be useful, for example, for successively issued multiparts, which are considered finite (a sample note might be: “Earliest vol. consulted: v. 2.”).

C.3 – Major and minor changes

3.1 – adopt the ISBD(S) and ISSN terminology of “major changes” and “minor changes”

We strongly support this recommendation. It is an excellent and long overdue idea.

3.2 – provide a listing of changes considered to be major changes that result in a new record or in a change to the entry

We strongly support this recommendation.

3.3 – revise the rule for title changes

There is general support for this recommendation among task force members, but with some hesitation and comment about details. We strongly support the recommendation that in cases of doubt, a change should be considered minor and not major and therefore not lead to the creation of a new record (that is, flipping the current AACR2R practice). One task force member does not support the consideration of words in the title being reduced from five to three, and suggests four as a compromise.

We think there should be some recognition that the recommendation to consider changes in the order of titles in other languages as minor changes might not be as easily acceptable in countries with more than one official language. This is an important consideration, especially if the adoption of the code in other countries is to be encouraged.

We also have suggestions for rewording:

• in the first paragraph:

  Consider any change to or rearrangement of the first three words of the title proper to constitute a major change, except for the following changes, which should be considered minor:

  a. Changes to articles, prepositions, or conjunctions.

  b. Changes occurring after the first three words ...

  and so on, with the necessary relettering of the listed exceptions.

• in the part about changes in the representation of a word or words:

  add instruction and examples for one word vs. two words, and one word vs. hyphenated forms.

• in the paragraph before the rationale:

  change the first “according to” to “depending on”.

3.4 – for continuing administrative reports, do not consider changes in the title to be major unless they indicate a major change in the type of report

We support this recommendation. However, the recommendation should refer to new headings rather than to authority records.

3.5 – adopt the list of minor changes in ISBD(S) for names of corporate bodies

We support this recommendation.

3.6 – listing of what to consider as major and minor changes

There is general support for this recommendation among task force members, but we also feel strongly that either here or elsewhere in the Hirons report there should be an acknowledgement and acceptance of the widespread use of one-record cataloging by libraries. This practice of “piggybacking,” which is sanctioned by CONSER, allows libraries to provide access to their e-serials by noting their existence on the records for another version (generally, the print). To use the FRBR terminology, this amounts to providing a bibliographic record for the serial at the expression level and providing only holdings and location information for the various manifestations. There are indeed libraries which are cataloging their e-serials strictly according to the current rules — that is, creating a separate bibliographic record for each version — but the new code will not accommodate all users if it does not recognize both practices. We therefore recommend that a change of physical format (3.6A) be considered a major change only for separate-record cataloging: for single-record cataloging, it should be considered a minor change.

3.7 – apply successive and latest entry conventions to continuing resources

There is general support for this recommendation among task force members, but with some specific hesitations. In general, we feel that this recommendation rightly recognizes that just as different materials exhibit varying degrees of seriality, so different approaches to describing these degrees of seriality are necessary. For some, successive entry makes sense, and for others latest entry does.

However, in the case of integrating resources, for which the Hirons recommendation is that major title changes be handled by changing the title on the record and making added entries for the former titles, some task force members object that this would amount to providing an entry for a title which no longer exists. Others support the recommendation, as it would provide more access rather than less and result in entries that would benefit users of indexes, who might be searching for the resource under its previous (and now non-existent) title.

3.8 – use a succession of latest entry records

We strongly object to this recommendation, chiefly for the reason which Hirons cites: it leads to groups of records which are hard for users (including catalogers) to understand and to interrelate.

In any case, in the last sentence the reference should be to “all minor changes.”

C.4 – Relationships

4.1 – establish a third part of the code for relationships

We strongly support the recommendation that relationships be given fuller treatment in any new code. However, some task force members object to this recommendation because it seems to contradict the recommendation to arrange the code by ISBD area. The concept of relationships should be addressed more fully in any revised code, but in its proper place — not in a separate part. However, one member feels that the concept of relationships is important enough that it should be a part of any new code, providing instructions for catalogers on how to apply them to all manner of bibliographic resources.

4.2 – change the rules for uniform titles

We support this recommendation, though we recognize that it would entail a lot of record maintenance.

4.3 – change the rules for uniform titles for translations and language editions

We support this recommendation.

4.4 – establish a benchmark for determining major changes

We support this recommendation.

4.5 – refer to relationship notes as relationship links

We support this recommendation.

4.6 – maintain relationship links

We support this recommendation, though we recognize that it would entail a lot of record maintenance.

Corrections

The task force suggests that the following corrections be made in the report:

all

do not use the terms record and description interchangeably, especially in sections of the report where they may cause confusion (e.g. C.3.7)

2.3 – Rationale, 2nd para., final sent.

delete period after would

2.3 – Rationale, 4th para., 3rd point

correct identify to identity

2.7 – Goals Achieved

add 7 (environment) to the list

2.13 – Rationale, 1st para., final sent.

revise to read: With electronic resources, it is increasingly difficult ...

3.3 – Impact

change period to comma between ISSN and MARC 21

3.4 – sent. before Rationale

add the word add before a uniform title.

3. 8 – sent. before Rationale

revise to read: ... but incorporate all minor changes within that record, as prescribed by latest entry conventions.

Appendix F

Example 2: The 740s should be 730s if they are uniform titles, and they should also end in periods. The word "Web" should be capitalized in the 500s.

Example 3: “Computer” in the GMD should be in lowercase. There should be no period at the end of the 710. “Adobe Acrobat Reader” is a product name, and so “Reader” should be capitalized in the 538.

Example 4: There should be a period at the end of the 538 and at the end of the second 710.

Bibliography

CC:DA Task Force on Rule 0.24. Report. May 26, 1999.

CC:DA Task Force on the Harmonization of ISBD(ER) and AACR2. Report. June 14, 1999.

CONSER. “AACR2 and Seriality.”
http://lcweb.loc.gov/acq/conser/serialty.html

CONSER AACR Review Task Force. “Final Reports.” Jan. 1999.
http://lcweb.loc.gov/acq/conser/serialty.html

Delsey, Tom. The Logical Structure of the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules. Part I (Aug. 1998) and Part II (Jan. 1999).
http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs.html#logical

Hirons, Jean. Revising AACR2 to Accommodate Seriality. Apr. 1999.
http://www.rda-jsc.org/ser-rep.pdf

Hirons, Jean, and Crystal Graham. “Issues Related to Seriality.” The Principles and Future of AACR: Proceedings of the International Conference on the Principles and Future Development of AACR, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, October 23-25, 1997, ed. Jean Weihs. Chicago: American Library Association, 1998.

Hirons, Jean, and Crystal Graham. “Proposal to Adopt a Modified Model C.” Apr. 1998.
http://lcweb.loc.gov/acq/conser/ModelC.html

Hirons, Jean, Judy Kuhagen, and Regina Reynolds. “Proposal for a Succession of Latest Entry Records.” Nov. 17, 1998.
http://lcweb.loc.gov/acq/conser/succlat.html

Hirons, Jean, Regina Reynolds, and Guenter Franzmeier. “Establishing a Benchmark to Determine When to Make a New Serial Record.” Nov. 10, 1998.
http://lcweb.loc.gov/acq/conser/keytitle.html

IFLA Study Group on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records. Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records. Munich: Saur, 1998.
http://www.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr.htm

Layne, Sara Shatford. “Incorporating Entry: A New Approach to Cataloging Electronic Journals.” May 18, 1998.
http://lcweb.loc.gov/acq/conser/incorp.html

“Ongoing Entities: The Impact of Modified Model C on Cataloging Description,” ed. Kristin Lindlan. Serials Review, v. 25, no. 1 (1999): p. 95-108.

Reynolds, Regina. “ISSN and Seriality.” May 1998.
http://lcweb.loc.gov/acq/conser/issn.html